Let's talk about system options versus character options.

[Bill Zebub]

I'm learning to really appreciate a la carte design, but a potential pitfall is that the designers miss some unintended combinations that the community figures out.

 

[dbm]

I have thought about this a lot over the years. First, there is no one best answer in my opinion, and second multiple options can and probably should exist in the same game system.

I have previously called these ‘gated abilities’ versus ‘skill penalty abilities’. Compare a system like GURPS with a system like early D&D editions.

In GURPS, if you want to try something fancy like disarming an enemy, that would be mechanically implemented as a skill penalty. Anyone can try it, but only highly skilled characters are likely to succeed reliably (meaning that they have invested significant character cost into having this level of skill). Contrast that with early class based systems where only certain classes could attempt specific things (e.g. only thieves can pick locks and so on). In such a system only characters with the right class, feat or some other on/off ability can attempt the action but that might be with no penalty since the player has invested a significant character cost to have access to it.

My initial feeling on this was that the skill-based approach is better since it seems reasonable that there are something most anyone can attempt. Experience has shown that it’s less black-or-white. Consider a GURPS character attempting a disarm or called shot rather than just trying to hit their enemy. That gives them a penalty to their combat skill, meaning that they are less likely to succeed. And when they fail, often there is no effect meaning that the character’s action was basically useless / meaningless. My experience is that this can result in some negative play experiences.

First, characters are less likely to try fancy manoeuvres, especially against difficult opponents. That means that fights against the toughest opponents cause the player to fall back in their most basic attacks (since these are more likely to succeed) which can feel anti-climactic, especially if this is a big set-piece against the BBEG or some such.

Secondly, if the player is trying to pull off a specific manoeuvre unsuccessfully but keeps going for some reason it can result in several rounds of complete non-contribution which, again, results in a negative experience for the player. In effect, the game is giving the player lots of opportunity for un-fun outcomes.

By contrast a systems which either says you need a feat to attempt some action, or make it a limited resource (e.g. ‘you may attempt a disarm a number of times equal to your Int modifier per long rest’ or some similar limitation) means that the character can reliably use a specific tactic. While that less ‘realistic’ it is probably more fun in play, more of the time.

There are other things which seem like they should be gated pretty strongly, like supernatural abilities, while still feeling ‘realistic’ since these sort of things are not commonly known.

My preference is for a third way, which borrows some element of both approaches. I like systems where levels of success generate some kind of resource that can be spent on special outcomes. Examples include generating stunt points in the AGE system, and success levels in Mythras, both of which can be used to achieve special effect with a post-hoc decision. The benefit of this is that- if the character doesn’t generate any special outcome they still get the basic result (in combat, doing some damage). So the players are encouraged to try cool things but they aren’t punished by a reduced chance of succeeding at the most basic version of the action.

So far, quite skill-like with all ‘up’ and no ‘down’. Where the other school of design potentially comes into play is letting players invest resources into their character to make certain special abilities easier to achieve. This happens in the AGE system where certain build options either add new ways of spending stunt points or make widely-available options cost less stunt points so you can access them more reliably.

The combined effect is that anyone can try a ‘stunt’ most of the time, and there is less negative play experience since they aren’t less likely to achieve a basic result. And on top of that players can invest resources in their ability to pull off favoured tactics more often.

 

[aramis erak]

[This is part of my ongoing effort to get a solid conceptual foundation for my own RPG design, so the goal is to get a sense of what other folks like and don't like in the domain of the subject.]


So what do you think? How do you prefer options be presented and available, and do you think they are better universal to the system, or built into character build choices?

If they're options available to player decisions, I prefer universal.
I prefer skill based to class based.

When it comes to systemic options, such as the various combat action options in Savage Worlds, I prefer them clearly marked, and if possible, to have a consolidated list of options with checkboxes, which makes it far easier to, as a group, go through and decide which the group will use. These checklists are the best feature from Rolemaster - The edition I have, they started with one of the companions, and it lists every optional rule to that point; later companion volumes added their content as additional pages. Makes it so much easier to set out what you're using or not. (Include the locations, too, on the checksheets.)

 

[RenleyRenfield]

[This is part of my ongoing effort to get a solid conceptual foundation for my own RPG design, so the goal is to get a sense of what other folks like and don't like in the domain of the subject.]

Fun idea = start with blank paper, then just run an adventure for your group. No character sheets, no rules, not even set dice. As you need to make things matter, write it down. Character does a strong thing? write down 'strong' and give them a bonus for doing strong things. GM need NPC to know a thing? roll to see what they know, or just make it up - then write it down. Let your own voice and gameplay inform what 'matters'. Then just codify that and refine that.
Even if it does not make a full rpg system for you, it will give you a very honest mirror as to what you are actually using/playing....

I like the idea of having lots of options available to players at any given time, but I also acknowledge that the more options available, the more likely some players end up with option paralysis.

Exalted 3e has lots of options. And GURPS has lots of options. It does lead to decision paralysis and it leads to a bunch of 'dead weight' options that were taken but not really used. All other games that do this have the same issue. I am not sure what this says, only that i can confirm these things 100% of the time when they exisit.

So what do you think? How do you prefer options be presented and available, and do you think they are better universal to the system, or built into character build choices?

Well... I say spend a few months playing and running nothing but Dread. Then see what your thoughts are.
I used to like the universal system to handle everything, then I played other games and realized universal systems are not universal, and they are not able to do many things. 10 Candles is another example of this... its just a thing GURPS, Savage Worlds, HERO, et al - can never do.

What experiences do you want in gaming?

Sometimes we want to laugh, sometimes we want to cry, sometimes we want to smash (bad guy or each other...take that as you will). So I got many many tools in my rpg shed, and its better for it.

This goes for character options. PBTA playbooks are neat, tidy, clear, do what they say on the tin. World of Darkness has tons of powers, merits, flaws, etc options options, does make some games fun too.

I made my own universal system based on WoD (link here in the vamp section) - my players liked this because it was intuitive and simple, and it could flex into a lot of settings. But after a while, it was clear it was too much for what we actually needed in play (that whole start with a blank paper thing...we did that ya....)

So in the end, i think all are great, both are good, do whatever makes your game bestest!

 

[Reynard]

Fun idea = start with blank paper, then just run an adventure for your group. No character sheets, no rules, not even set dice.

I have done "naked GMing" before and enjoy it, but have not used it for the purpose of trying to build a foundation for a new system. Interesting idea.

So in the end, i think all are great, both are good, do whatever makes your game bestest!

Again, it is waaaaay too early for that. I am just in the conceptual stage and interested in what folks think about these topics independent of me saying "My game will look this this!"

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I have done "naked GMing" before and enjoy it, but have not used it for the purpose of trying to build a foundation for a new system. Interesting idea.

Ohh ohh! Here is another one for ya! = Run a game where combat and harm is not allowed or even possible. Not as in you run away from everything, but that all problems big and small, life and death - are resolved via some other way, one that never causes harm, damage or loss of agency. A great self study of what happens when the world/setting of the game has to acknowledge its own social systems and it highlights what intrigue really is! (beyond just a few lucky persuasion checks )
It does a lot more too,... it shows the lengths that people go to in order to win without lifting a finger. Infinity rpg does this better than any other, except maybe Dune...

Again, it is waaaaay too early for that. I am just in the conceptual stage and interested in what folks think about these topics independent of me saying "My game will look this this!"

I hear ya. Just offering encouragement. Now is such a great time to explore gaming! There are soooo many cool games!

Which reminds me, I still need to run Dallas the RPG.... @Campbell that's it L5R is on hold, we are headed to Texas!